rls_list_coverage

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The word 'Report' implies a read-only operation, and the focus on coverage is clear. However, it does not disclose details like whether only tables with at least one RLS policy are included, or how policy counts are aggregated. It is minimally adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence (plus a compact parameter hint). Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, has one parameter, and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. It clearly states the core behavior and the special schema_name value. It could mention that only tables with RLS enabled are included, but that is strongly implied by 'tables with RLS enabled'.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has only schema_name with a default but no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds essential meaning by explaining the special value 'all' to target all schemas. This compensates well for the missing schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('tables with RLS enabled') and clearly states the output ('policy counts'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like rls_list_policies and rls_get_policy by focusing on table-level coverage rather than policy details.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rls_list_policies or schema_list_tables. It includes a parameter tip (schema_name='all' for all), but this does not address tool selection or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.